Abaddon K, thanks for clarifying what you meant.
I do believe in some company loyalty, yes. But why should a company be forced to hold on to an employee if they just rest on their laurels and STOP being a good employee? I am concerned more with employees that refuse to update their skills when the company provides training for it. For example, employees that refuse to learn a new computer program and insist on doing things the old way because that is the way it was done in the past? I think it is an exception rather than the rule, but I have worked with a couple people like this before. I think the company has the right to say "You need to work under our guildelines, or you don't work here."
I used to be a Teamster, back in the mid early to mid 90s. I saw more union employees abuse their protection than I ever saw a manager take advantage of an employee. There was one employee that had been there for over 10 years. He was out for about 2 years on an employment related disability. When he came back (they held his position, as they rightly should have) there had been a few policy changes on how things were done. For instance, no smoking in doors. He was reminded nicely the first 2 weeks, but still openly smoked in the break room blatantly. Also, he refused to cooperate with a few other small policy changes the line. He was a miserable bastard to work with as well.
Anyway...the managers allowed themselves to be intimated by this guy because he was always in their face about the union. He made the union look bad, was a lousy worker, and should have been fired. But no, he had his "protection".
(I am not trying to talk bad about unions per say, this is just the example I thought of when you mentioned employment protection.)
I guess what scares me about giving blanket employment protection is that there are some that will stop striving to do the best job that they can. I wouldn't want anyone to feel like they are going to lose their job at any giving minute, but if they are not working under reasonable guildelines that the company has, no matter how long they have been there, then they don't deserve to work there.
Of course, one can argue what is reasonable guidelines. I have worked for companies that have done a great job of putting together job descriptions and guidelines as to what they expect from their employees and what the employees can expect from the company. I have also worked for companies that change those guidelines on a whim.
I do have one more question for you:
Without this financial responsibility. the companies decisions end up costing the public purse, effectively subsidising a private company with public money.
when you say costing the public purse...are you referring to unemployment insurance or another similiar program? I am not sure how that would be subsidising a private company if the employee is no longer there? I was wondering if you could explain what you meant?
Thanks.
